B. v The Clinical Director of an Approved Centre
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Barr |
| Judgment Date | 13 July 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IEHC 486 |
| Docket Number | [Record No. 2021/960 SS] |
| Year | 2021 |
| Court | High Court |
In the Matter of an Application Pursuant to Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland
[2021] IEHC 486
[Record No. 2021/960 SS]
THE HIGH COURT
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Barr delivered on the 13th day of July, 2021
This is a judgment in relation to an inquiry pursuant to Art. 40 of the Constitution into the lawfulness of the detention of the applicant at an approved psychiatric centre in the days subsequent to 23rd June, 2021 and in particular on 28th June, 2021, when a renewal order was made extending the period of his detention for a further three months.
The inquiry was heard by the court on 9th July, 2021. The court had the benefit of both written and oral legal submissions on behalf of the parties. By agreement, the court was permitted a number of days to consider its judgment.
Stripped to its barest essentials, the applicant was the subject of an admission order to an approved centre on 26th May, 2021. The Mental Health Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “ the Tribunal”) sat on 11th June, 2021 to review the admission order. On that date it made an order extending the period within which it could consider the admission order by a further 14 days pursuant to s. 18 (4) of the Mental Health Act 2001 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act”).
On 23rd June, 2021 the tribunal held a further hearing, when it heard evidence from a garda witness. Having considered the matter, it affirmed the admission order on that date.
On 28th June, 2021 a renewal order was made by the consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of the applicant for a further period of three months.
The applicant submitted that he had not been in lawful detention under the Act after 23rd June, 2021 and in particular, when the treating psychiatrist purported to make the renewal order on 28th June, 2021. In essence, it was argued on behalf of the applicant that once the tribunal had reached its decision, which it had done on 23 June 2021, the applicant's detention after that date had not been properly sanctioned by the treating psychiatrist, as he/she had not made the requisite renewal order prior to the tribunal reaching its decision. Accordingly, it was submitted that the applicant's detention from 23rd June 2021 onwards and in particular on 28th June, 2021, when the renewal order was made, was unlawful.
On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used in s. 18 (4) of the Act meant that the period of 21 days under the original admission order had been extended to 35 days when the tribunal made the extension order on 11th June, 2021.
It was submitted that as the renewal order had been made within that period, the applicant's detention had been lawful up to and including the date on which the renewal order had been made.
The submissions of the parties will be dealt with in greater detail later in the judgment.
26th May, 2021 Admission order made. The admission order would have expired on 15th June, 2021.
11th June, 2021 Tribunal hearing was held to review the admission order. Some evidence was heard. The tribunal decided that it needed to hear evidence from further witnesses. The tribunal extended the period within which it could make its decision for a period of 14 days pursuant to s. 18 (4).
23rd June, 2021 The tribunal hearing resumed. It heard further evidence from a Garda witness. The tribunal affirmed the admission order on that date.
28th June, 2021 A renewal order was made extending the applicant's detention by a further period of three months from that date.
12th July, 2021 A tribunal hearing was held to review the making of the renewal order.
By letter dated 13th July, 2021 from Ms. Oakes, the applicant's assigned legal representative, the court's registrar was informed that the tribunal had revoked the renewal order. However, the court was asked to proceed to deliver its judgment in the matter.
It is not necessary to go into the circumstances of the applicant's case in any great detail. However, a brief description of the background circumstances will be of assistance in understanding the factual background against which the legal issues must be considered in this case.
The applicant is a male of 57 years of age. He resides in or near a relatively small rural town. It appears that on 26th May. 2021, the applicant's GP and the Gardaí became aware that the applicant's mother had been put out of her house by the applicant. She had gone to a neighbour's house in some fear and had reported the matter.
Section 12 of the Act permits a detention to be made of a person where a Garda has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a serious likelihood of the person causing immediate and serious harm to himself or others. That section had been invoked by a particular Garda in respect of the applicant on 26th May, 2021. The necessary form, known as a Form 3, had been signed by the Garda concerned and by an authorised officer.
An admission order was signed by a consultant psychiatrist at 16:30 hours on 26th May, 2021. When the tribunal sat to review the making of the admission order, a conflict in evidence arose, due to the fact that the applicant gave evidence to the tribunal that he had been working upstairs in his room on his computer, when the Garda and others arrived at the property. He denied that he had acted in any way aggressively towards them or towards his mother. He denied that he had put her out of the house.
The tribunal determined that given this conflict in evidence, it would be necessary for them to hear evidence from the Garda who had attended at the property on 26th May, 2021 and from the authorised officer, who had also signed the Form 3. To that end, the tribunal made an order pursuant to s. 18 (4) extending the period during which it could carry out its review of the admission order by a period of 14 days.
When the tribunal reconvened on 23rd June, 2021, it heard evidence from the relevant Garda witness. He gave evidence of the applicant's condition when he attended at the property on that date. In particular, he gave evidence in relation to a number of delusional statements made by the applicant in relation to his being persecuted by various persons and entities, and concerning his discovery of a cure for COVID-19.
As the Garda stated in evidence that he had already made up his mind to detain the applicant under s. 12 of the Act, prior to speaking to the authorised officer, the tribunal ruled that it was not necessary for them to hear from the authorised officer.
On the same date, the tribunal reached its decision in relation to the admission order. The tribunal accepted the evidence of the Garda witness that he had reasonable grounds for forming the belief that the applicant was suffering from a mental disorder and that because of that mental disorder there was a serious likelihood of the applicant causing immediate and serious harm to himself or others, which the Garda witness had outlined to the tribunal and was based both on his interactions with the applicant and his interactions with the applicant's mother. The tribunal ruled that the Garda's evidence to it had been clear and consistent. It stated that it had no reason to doubt his veracity. In such circumstances, the tribunal accepted that s. 12 of the Act was validly invoked by the Garda and held that the Form 3 had been validly signed.
Having reviewed certain other evidence that was given to it, the tribunal affirmed the admission order made on 26th May, 2021.
On 28th June, 2021 the renewal order in respect of the applicant was made by the responsible consultant psychiatrist. That extended his detention until 27th September, 2021.
It should be noted that a number of the provisions in the 2001 Act have been amended so as to deal with the difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, these amendments are not of relevance to this case.
The making of an admission order is provided for in s. 14 of the Act. It provides that where a recommendation in relation to a person the subject of an application is received by the clinical director of an approved centre, a consultant psychiatrist, on the staff of the approved centre shall, as soon as may be, carry out an examination of the person and shall thereupon either (a) if he or she is satisfied that the person is suffering from a mental disorder, make an admission order for the reception, detention and treatment of the person, or (b) if the doctor is not so satisfied, he or she shall refuse to make an admission order.
Section 15 of the Act deals with the duration and renewal of admission orders. It is of relevance to the circumstances of this case. The relevant provisions are as follows:-
-
“15.—(1) An admission order shall authorise the reception, detention and treatment of the patient concerned and shall remain in force for a period of 21 days from the date of the making of the order and, subject to subsection (2) and section 18 (4), shall then expire.
-
(2) The period referred to in subsection (1) may be extended by order (to be known as and in this Act referred to as “a renewal order”) made by the consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of the patient concerned for a further period not exceeding 3 months.”
Section 17 of the Act provides that following the receipt by the Commission of a copy of an admission order, or a renewal order, the Commission shall, as soon as possible (a) refer the matter to a tribunal and (b) assign a legal representative to represent the patient concerned unless he or she proposes to engage one.
Section 18 of the Act provides for the review by a tribunal of admission orders...
To continue reading
Request your trial